THE DIOCESE OF HARRISBURG
Page
Response of the Diocese of Harrisburg

202

Response of Father James McLucas

208

Response of Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades

211

Response of Auxiliary Bishop William Waltersheid

217

 (717) 657.4804
FAX (73.7) 657-1370

DIOCESE OF HARRISBURG

4800 Union Deposit Road
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17111-3710
BishopisOffice@hbgdiocese.org
www.hbgdiocese.org

OFFICE OF THE BISHOP

June 20, 2018

Dear Reader:
On behalf of the Diocese of Harrisburg, this letter and my. March 8, 2018 Statement to the
Grand Jury, which is enclosed, is the response ofthe Diocese to the 40th Statewide Investigating
Grand Jury's Report.

With this letter, I wish to make just a few points. To begin, the Diocese apologizes for any
abuse committed by clergy, stag volunteers, or otherwise who were associated with the Diocese.
Such abuse is a scourge on Society, and as Bishop ofthe Diocese of Harrisburg, 1 take seriously both
mine and the Diocese's obligation to prevent such abuse from occurring, to foster healing, and to be
transparent.
Next, I must emphasize that the Diocese has substantially overhauled its child protection
programs over the years, and I can confidently say today we take every reasonable effort to prevent
abuse and take every step necessary to report abuse when such allegations are received. Indeed, when
reports of abuse are made, they are promptly acted upon without question, 'including both the
immediate reporting of the abuse to law enforcement and suspending the accused person from
contact with children. No exceptions. The Diocese can say without reservation that every person with
an allegation of child sexual abuse has been turned over to law enforcement.
Finally, this investigation has caused the Diocese to take a frank look at its past as well as its.

present Part of that assessment is an evaluation by the Diocese of whether any lingering symbols of
the sad history revealed in the Report remain. Specifically, the Diocese is evaluating whether the
names ca.ried on certain buildings, rooms, and halls in the Diocese should continue. Accordingly, I
have directed my Staff to establish a "committee on names" to advise me whether any of the persons
discussed in the Report, who are also named in or on our facilities, should have their names removed.
I have directed this committee to report to me in all due haste and I will act promptly on their
recommendations.

In closing, on behalf of the Diocese, I again recommit to preventing and eradicating abuse in
our midst and to preventing any of this hiStory from repeating. I hope this is an opportwfity to not
only reflect, yet also a time to heal.
Respectfully,

ic?df...010
Most Rev. Ronald W. Gainer
Bishop of the Diocese of Hanisburg
Enclosure

202

 (717) 6574804
FAX (717) 657-1370

DIOCESE OF HARRISBURG

4800 Union Deposit Road
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17111-3710
Bishop'sOffice@hhgdiocese.org
www.hbgdiocese.org

OFFICE OF THE BISHOP

Statement of Bishop Ronald W. Gainer to the 40th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury
My name is Bishop Ronald W. Gainer. I was appointed Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese
of Harrisburg by his Holiness Pope Francis on January 24, 2014. I was installed on March 19,
2014. This is my first assignment within the Diocese of Harrisburg.

Thank you for this opportunity to offer a written statement to the. Grand Jury concerning actions
taken by the Diocese to prevent child sexual abuse. It is understood that this statement is
submitted in lieu of live testimony before the Grand July.
I assure;you that, with the guidance of experts in child protection and law enforcement, the
Diocese some time ago adopted safeguards for the well-being and protection of children
entrusted to our care. This includes a comprehensive program developed, and regularly audited
by, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which features, among other thing , a
Victims Assistance Coordinator (VAC) on staff at the. Diocese. The VAC's sole mission is to
serve survivors and facilitate their healing. The Diocese also has a comprehensive youth
protection program that educates clergy, employees, and volunteers on appropriate and safe
interactions with children and ensures that certain basic precautions are implemented whenever
children interact with Diocesan personnel. Our commitment to a safe environment for children
includes two full-time employees whose charge and chiefjob responsibilities are the safety of
children; these employees are in addition to the VAC.

The Diocese has also implemented the following safeguards to protect children:
The Diocese has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to individuals who abused minors.
No such persons are allowed to work in the Diocese or participate in volunteer activities
thit may place them in contact with children.

As part of the employment/volunteer application process, all Diocesan personnel and all
Diocesan volunteers who may come in contact with children are required to pass detailed
backgyound checks, to disclose information relating to any prior allegations or instances
of abuse, and to complete state -mandated reporter training for recognizing and reporting
child abuse.
The Diocese developed a comprehensive educational program to teach children and their
parents to recognize, avoid, and report suspicious conduct Specific instruction is
provided to students in Diocesan schools in the first and fifth grades and at the high
school level.

203

 The Diocese regularly trains clergy, employees, and volunteers to recognize and report
abuse using a state -approved online training program.

The Diocese provides easily identifiable ID Badges for all individuals who have
completed the required background certification and training for the Diocesan Youth
Protection Program.
Additionally, I will continue to aggressively remove abusers from ministry, employment, or
volunteer positions. One proven allegation of abuse automatically bars the person in question
from association with the Diocese. While new abuse allegations are examined by law
enforcement or theDiocese, I place appropriate restrictions on the accused to prevent any contact
with children pending the outcome of the investigation.
Further, in addition to reporting every new allegation to law enforcement, the Diocese now
submits all investigations of complaints to professional, outside investigators, who are neither
clergy nor personnel of the Diocese. These same outside investigators were asked to review a
number of historical, unresolved complaints to determine whether additional information was
available that might assist in assessing the credibility of the allegations. As a result of these
inquiries, we acquired additional information, which was provided to the Office of Attorney
General and District Attorney& The reexamination of those historic allegations led me to replace
certain Diocesan personnel.

It is noteworthy that, in connection with the Grand Jury investigation, the Diocese produced over
200,000 pages of records to the Grand Jury, including the records of allegations of child sexual
abuse made against personnel of the Diocese. Importantly, the Diocese of Harrisburg has turned
over to law enforcement ever), file concerning allegations of child sexual abuse made against the
Diocese. These include allegations appearing to be credible and those appearing to be not
credible; all have been turned over. Because we have and will continue to provide to law
enforcement the identity of every accused clergy, employee or volunteer, and because we'have
implemented a rigorous safe environment program and will continue to examine the program for
possible improvements, I believe that our churches and schools are safe for the people of this
Diocese.
The Diocese is committed to taking all appropriate measures to protect young people. For
instance, soon the Diocese of Harrisburg will launch a website that will include specific
instructions on how to report child sex abuse and other information pertinent to our efforts to
ensure the safety of our children. The site will include:

Information on victims' assistance and how survivors can receive the support and
counseling that they need.

A comprehensiv6 overview of the systems we have put in place to prevent abuse,
including background checks, clearances, training, and audits of our systems.

.

The signs for identifying abuse.

Information about employee training and screening.

2

204

 Phone numbers for reporting allegations of abuse.

Other Diocesan policies and our code of conduct.
Additionally, graphics from, and links to, the website will be provided to each parish to post on
their own website.

I have also directed the Diocese to retain a Third-party vendor to host a telephone number for
persons to call with allegations of abuse against clergy, employees, and volunteer& The number
will be posted prominently on the updated website and will be staffed by persons not associated
with the Diocese. The vendor will be responsible for reporting any allegations received directly
to ChildLine, to law enforcement, and then to administrative staff at the Diocese. This third-party
service will be in addition to the phone number the Diocese already maintains for reporting
allegations of abuse. Further, every accusation of child sexual abuse against any Diocesan
personnel is reported immediately to law enforcement and examined thoroughly. Indeed, when
information concerning a reportable allegation is made known to the Diocese, we report it to
ChildLine immediately, and follow the report with a letter to the relevant county district attorney.
We are, and have been committed, to honesty, transparency, and diligence in ensuring'the safety
of our children in all matters.
Finally, I have decided to overhaul the current Review Board for the Diocese, which is the body
that assists me, as Bishop, in the discharge of my Canonical responsibilities for reviewing
allegations of abuse. In the near future, the Board will be reconstituted to include a wider range
of perspectives and voices, including persons not associated with the Diocese who have relevant
experience in the area of protecting children from abuse.

I believe it is important,to also recognize the positive work the Church does by acting as a
spiritual center for our community, and to recogni 0 the work we do to help those in need.
In addition to being a place of worship for the Catholic community in our area, Catholic
Charities of the Diocese of Harrisburg offers a variety of services for the entire community. In
fact, last year Catholic Charities spent $8.4 million dollars funding a variety of programs
including:

Assisting with adoption services, providing housing, assistance, transportation,
employment, diapers, clothing, furniture and childbirth and parenting classes to expecting
mothers in need.
Locating foster homes for children in need of stable families.
Helping families in need of the Intensive Family Services Program, which helps provide
family therapy to those in need of parenting skills as well as connecting families to
community resources.

Providing a wide range of social and educational services to immigrants, refugees,
visitors, and non-English speakers, including helping them find employment, learn

205

 English, find housing, find financial assistance for housing and utility bills, and obtain
immigration legal services.

Assisting with the interfaith shelter for homeless families, where staff works to help sort
out issues that may have caused homelessness, unemployment, education, childcare,
healthcare, transportation and other related issues. Upon completion of the program, as
many as 98% of the families achieve a stable level of housing and a better quality of life.
Operating the Paradise School Program, which provides emotional and behavioral
support to school age children. Staff members include an Instructional Advisor as well as
a School Psychologist, Speech Therapist, and Occupational Therapist. Paradise Staff
provide crisis intervention, supervision during lunch and break periods, social skills
education, and school district coordination, all to help students return to their home
school districts and continue their education.

Providing the Intensive Day Treatment Program, an alternative to residential treatment
services, which serves at-risk youth from age nine to fifteen who possesses significant
emotional and behavioral needs.
As you can see, the Diocese fills a variety of critical support functions in mid-state communities,
helping those of all backgrounds, faiths, and economic standing, and in particular our youth.

This entire situation causes me great sadness, for once again we come face-to-face with the
horror that innocent children were the.victims of terrible crimes committed against them. I
encourage survivors to come forward so that the Church can aid in their healing.

Our efforts in finding and attempting to aid survivors in their path to healing is ongoing. The
Diocese of Harrisburg has worked to help survivors of child sex abuse who have bravely come
forward and has made substantial resources available for survivors. In addition to financial
support, survivors receive counseling from qualified professionals and other assistance as
appropriate. Without any question, counseling is provided to survivors who come forward.
Regardless of when the abuse occurred, we respond to the survivors' needs.
In conclusion, I pray that the love of our God, whose tenderness and compassion endures in
every age, will continue to restore those who are survivors of all abuse, physical, mental,
emotional, and sexual. Thank you again for the opportunity to submit these remarks.

Dated:

/14441

261:
Bishop Ronald W. Gainer

206

 207

RESPONSE OF FATHER JAMES McLUCAS TO THE
REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY
PURSUANT TO 42 PA. C.S.§4552(e)

THE LAW FIRM OF WILLIAM G. SAYEGH, P.C.
65 Gleneida Avenue
Carmel, New York 10512
(845) 228-4200
Attorneys for Father James McLucas

208

 Father James McLucas respectfully requests that interested persons read and consider this
response before forming any final conclusions about the shocking and horrible accusations that
have been leveled against him in the report issued by the 40th Statewide Investigating. Grand
Jury. These allegations must have been based upon half-truths, false assumptions, and/or
innuendo and are categorically false. Any individual that provided information that could have
led to such conclusions by the Grand Jury was misinformed, sought to mislead the Grand Jury, or
was mistaken. It is unknown what evidence was presented to the Grand Jury; what is known,
however, is that Father McLucas was never asked to testify or given an opportunity to present
evidence on his own behalf.
While Father McLucas was not charged with any crime, the shocking and horrible
accusations in the report without published evidence, without trial, and without due process of
law will nevertheless blacken his reputation and destroy him in his profession. In this regard,
the report so offends traditional notions of fairness that Father McLucas is compelled to publicly
make this response denying each and every allegation in the strongest possible terms.

-

-

209

  

 

 

 

 

210

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
2 W.D. MISC. DKT. 2016

IN RE:
THE FORTIETH STATEWIDE

ALLEGHENY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS
CP-02-MD-571-2016

INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY

BISHOP KEVIN C. RHOADES' RESPONSE TO EXCERPTS OF THE FORTIETH
STATEWIDE INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY REPORT NUMBER I
Kevin C. Rhoades ("Bishop Rhoades"), through his counsel, Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott, LLC, pursuant to the Court's Amended Order of May 22, 2018, hereby submits his
Response to Excerpts of the Fortieth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury Report Number 1
("Report").
.

Initially, Bishop Rhoades offers his heartfelt sympathy and support to all of those
victimized by abusive priests. Like so many of his fellow priests, he has worked hard throughout
his ministry to expose and punish those who would abuse and to aid and support those harmed
by abuse. Sadly, as the Report makes abundantly clear, those collective efforts have fallen short.
Bishop Rhoades pledges his ongoing and undying efforts to ensure that abuse does not occur in
the future, that abusers are removed immediately from ministry, that victims are provided all
necessary care and support and that civil authothies are made fully aware of all allegations of
abuse.

Bishop Rhoades is mentioned in the Report in connection with two cases of abuse that
occurred long before he was installed as Bishop of the Diocese of Harrisburg. In both cases, after
Bishop Rhoades was made aware of allegations of abuse, he reported them to civil authorities
and saw to it that the abusers were punished. Given his limited role, it is not surprising that the
Report contains scant context about Bishop Rhoades or his involvement in these two cases. With
this response, Bishop Rhoades provides that context, in the hope that his actions and intentions
are accurately and completely portrayed and understood.
First, Bishop Rhoades was appointed as the Bishop of Harrisburg in December 2004. For
the ten years' prior, he had been out of the Diocese, serving as a professor and then the rector of
Mount Saint Mary's Seminary in Maryland. Bishop Rhoades began his tenure as Bishop of
Harrisburg, therefore, more than two years after the United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops adopted the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. Thus, prior to his
arrival, the Diocese had already developed and implemented a comprehensive set of procedures
for addressing allegations of sexual abuse of minors and adopted programs for reconciliation,
healing, accountability, and the prevention of future acts of abuse. The Diocese had also already
combed through its files and identified all prior allegations of child sexual abuse and ensured that
any credibly accused priest had been removed from ministry.

{M1778077.1}

211

 Second, during his five-year tenure in Harrisburg (Bishop Rhoades served until
December 2009, after which he was installed as Bishop for the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South
Bend, Indiana), Bishop Rhoades ensured that the Diocese scrupulously followed its policies and
procedures designed to address allegations of child sexual abuse; that it took all such allegations
seriously; treated victims with care and compassion; investigated all allegations and removed all
credibly accused priests from ministry; notified civil authorities of the allegations; and,
cooperated fully with law enforcement. The Report does not state or suggest otherwise.

Third, in both cases in which he is mentioned in the Report, Bishop Rhoades moved to
discipline the abusers (both of whom had previously been removed from ministry) and notified
both church and civil authorities of the allegations.
For example, in the first case, William Presley was a priest from the Diocese of Erie who
apparently retired to Lancaster in 2000. Bishop Rhoades did not know Presley, was unaware of
his presence in the Diocese of Harrisburg, was unaware of what, if any, priestly duties he may
have been practicing in Lancaster and had no idea that he had previously been accused of child
sexual abuse. To the best of his recollection, Bishop Rhoades first learned of Presley and abuse
allegations against him in early 2006, when the Bishop of Erie asked Bishop Rhoades to draft a
"votum" - a written statement - that would be used as part of the disciplinary proceeding against
Presley that had been initiated by Erie. Unfamiliar with Presley and/or his activities in the
Diocese of Harrisburg, Bishop Rhoades asked his Chancery Staff to research Presley's situation
and to prepare the votum. Bishop Rhoades relied on his Chancery Staff and believed that the
facts asserted in the votum (all of which occurred before Bishop Rhoades arrived in Harrisburg)
were true.

Bishop Rhoades was firm in his belief that Presley had to be removed from the
priesthood, which was the most severe form of punishment available. Bishop Rhoades' votum is
clear and unequivocal on this point:
[Presley's] lengthy history of sexual misconduct in violation of his promise of
clerical celibacy and perpetual continence, his deliberate misrepresentation of the
truth to the bishop to whom he promised respect and obedience, and the grisly
nature of his many sexual acts even beyond the one known gravius delictus
committed with a minor, all combine to suggest to me as the ordinary of the place
where he now resides, that Bishop Trautman's request is reasonable and
necessary. Dismissal from the clerical state may be the only means of removing
a sexual predator from the ranks of the priesthood. His age is not necessarily an
obstacle to his sexual misconduct, given his history.
As long as Father William F. Presley remains in the clerical state, I harbor fear for
the People of God within the Diocese of Harrisburg. I fear that his possession of
the clerical state will allow him a means of continuing his pattern of carefully
insinuating himself into the lives of others as a prelude to violence and sexual
misconduct. Further, I believe that his own contumacy, and his denial of the
seriousness of his behavior, may be intransigent until an action as serious as
dismissal from the clerical state awakens within him a semblance of repentance.
041778077.0

2

212

 The Vatican agreed, and on June 6, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI removed Presley from the
clerical state. But, having Presley defrocked was not enough. Instead, Bishop Rhoades also made
sure that law enforcement was informed of Presley's abuse and his current whereabouts, which
was accomplished via a letter dated June 23, 2006 to the District Attorney for Lancaster County.
The. Report quotes the following portion of a single sentence from the two -page votum:
"were this information [about Presley's abuSe] to become known, especially in light of his offers
of public assistance at Mass in several parishes, great public scandal would arise within this
diocese." While this selective quotation is accurate, taken out of context, it could easily be
misunderstood Bishop Rhoades' votum was to be included in a package of information that the
Diocese of Erie would to submit to a Vatican judicial entity known as the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith ("CDF"). According to canon law, one of the key purposes of imposing
ecclesiastical penalties is the "repair of scandal." In the voturn, Bishop Rhoades supported his
recommendation that the most severe penalty be imposed against Presley by noting that his
wrongdOing would cause "great public scandal" if and when it became public. While this
language, on its face, could be misinterpreted to indicate that Bishop Rhoades wished to protect
Presley or to bury the allegations, Bishop Rhoades' conduct proves otherwise He notified the
District Attorney of the allegations against Presley, that Presley had been suspended from
ministry, and of Presley's current whereabouts. And he stridently advocated for his removal from
the clerical state.

The second case, involving Francis. Bach, similarly features a situation where Bishop
Rhoades, after learning of a new allegation of abuse against Bach, acted immediately to punish
the priest and to notify law enforcement. Bach had been removed from ministry by way of penal
precept more than ten years before Bishop Rhoades arrived in Harrisburg. While Bishop
Rhoades was aware of the reasons for Bach's removal from ministry, his first direct involvement
with allegations of abuse against Bach occurred in April 2007, when another Bach victim
advised the Diocese that he had been abused on three occasions between 1966 and 1971. Bishop
Rhoades immediately opened a formal investigation and directed his staff to meet with the
victim, which meeting took place within 72 hours of the allegation. Bishop Rhoades also
instructed counsel for the Diocese to notify the. Dauphin County District Attorney's Office of the
new allegation and of Bach's whereabouts. That notification letter was also sent within 72 hours
of the diocese's receipt of the new allegation. Bishop Rhoades subsequently issued a second,
more severe, penal precept precluding Bach from acting as a priest, and reported the case to the
CDF.
As the Report notes, in his submission to the CDF, Bishop Rhoades did not recommend
the initiation of a formal judicial proceeding. Bishop Rhoades' recommendation was based on
many factors, including that Bach had been out of ministry for 13 years, he had been living in
another state without incident for many years, his abuse occurred decades earlier (the latest
reported abuse appears to have been in the mid-1970's), he was over 70 years old, and he was in
ill health and had been recently hospitalized with blood clots in his lungs and legs. In addition,
by removing Bach from 'ministry and forcing him to live a life of prayer and penance, the
Diocese followed the precepts of the Dallas Charter, whiCh states: "If the penalty of dismissal
from the clerical state has not been applied (e.g., for reasons of advanced age or infirmity), the
{M1778077.1)

3

213

 offender ought to lead a life of prayer and penance. He will not be permitted to celebrate Mass
publicly or to administer the sacraments. He is to be instructed not to wear clerical garb, or to
present himself publicly as a priest.)"
In addition to bringing the allegations of abuse to the CDF, Bishop Rhoades was careful
to make sure that the local District Attorney and the diocese in which Bach lived were informed
of the allegations, which notification was accomplished by sending letters to the Dauphin County
District Attorney's Office and to the Bishop of Wilmington, where Bach had moved after being
removed from ministry in 1994.
As with the Presley votum, Bishop Rhoades again addressed whether and how the public
disclosure of Bach's misconduct would impact the community, noting that such disclosure would
"cause scandal to many, as he is still a priest who is beloved by many in our diocese." This is the
portion of the votum that the Report quotes. Again, as with Presley, the context for Bishop
Rhoades' observation is important. First, there can be no suggestion that Bishop Rhoades
intended to keep the allegations secret. In fact, he did the opposite. He disclosed the allegations
to the CDF, to the District Attorney and to the Bishop of Wilmington. He also knew that the
diocese had notified Bach's home town's Chief of Police of prior allegations of abuse. Similarly,
it cannot be suggested that Bishop Rhoades intended to "go light" on Bach. To the contrary,
Bishop Rhoades issued a Decree of Penal Precept that precluded Bach from acting like a priest,
dressing like a priest, referring to himself as a priest, or celebrating any public sacrament. Short
of excommunication, this is the most serious penalty a Bishop can impose. The penalty was
redundant, moreover, given that Bach was already subject to a similar, if less onerous, penal
precept from 1994 and there was no indication that Bach had ever violated that earlier precept.
Finally, the votum itself comprehensively explains the rationale for Bishop Rhoades'
recommendation: that Bach had been living a life of prayer and penance for nearly 13 years, that
he had little possibility of contact with children and youth, that the penal precept required that he
avoid all contact with children and youth, that he was celibate, that his abuse had occurred more
than thirty years earlier, that he was in ill health, that he was living in solitude, and that he was
making daily visits to a former neighbor who was confined to a nursing home.
In conclusion, the Report details shocking and heart -wrenching reports of sexual abuse of
children and equally appalling indifference to victims. Since his elevation to Bishop in 2004,
Bishop Rhoades has committed himself to safeguarding children, to removing abusers and to
working to restore the faithful's confidence in the church and its leadership. He will not stop
until no child is abused and no abuser is protected.

(M1778077.1)

4

214

 Respectfully submitted,

ECKERT SEAMANS CBERIN
& MELLOTT, LLC

David M. Laigaie, Esquire
Two Liberty Place
50 S. 16th Street, 22nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
dlaigde@eckertseamans.com
(2.15)'851-8386 (Telephone)
(215) 851-8383 (Telecopy)
Counselfor Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades

{M1778077.1)

5

215

 .216

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
2 W.D. MISC. DKT. 2016

THE FORTIETH STATEWIDE
INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY

ALLEGHENY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS
CP-02-MD-571-2016

NOTICE NO.

1

AUXILIARY BISHOP WILLIAM WALTERSHEID'S RESPONSE TO REPORT NO.
OF THE 401.11 STATEWIDE GRAND JURY

1

Auxiliary Bishop William Waltersheid served in the Chancery of the Roman Catholic
Diocese of Harrisburg from 2006 to 2011 and held the position of Secretary for Clergy and

Consecrated Life, and in that capacity had a role in addressing allegations of sexual abuse or

improper conduct by priests and deacons. From 2011 to present, Rev. Waltersheid has served in
the Chancery of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh, including holding the positions of

Auxiliary Bishop, Vicar for Clergy and Consecrated Life and Vicar of Region I, and in that
capacity has had a role in addressing allegations of sexual abuse or improper conduct by priests
and deacons. He helped handle dozens of allegations of abuse during his time in the respective

positions in both Dioceses. In his role in both Dioceses, Rev, Waltersheid consistently endeavored
to put the need for pastoral care of victims of abuse and their rights first. He believes he did so and

that his work in each respective Chancery reflects this fact.

The Grand Jury Report appears to concur with this assessment. Despite his long tenure in
his respective positions in both Dioceses and his having been involved in handling dozens of
allegations, while his name is mentioned in various places in the Report, references to him almost
universally deal with Rev. Waltersheid simply being involved in the processing of an allegation of

217

 abuse or trying to pastorally provide for a victim. A plain reading of the Report reveals that no

allegations of misconduct or efforts to hide allegations of abuse are levied against Rev. Waltersheid.

Auxiliary Bishop Waltersheid sends his prayerful support to all victims of abuse.

2

218

REDACTED -- ONGOING APPELLATE
LITIGATION

 Respectfully submitted

David
erardinelli, Esq., Pa. ID 79204
DeForest Koscelnik Yokitis & Berardinelli
436 Seventh Avenue, 30th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Attorney for Auxiliary Bishop William Waltersheid

3

219

 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE:

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
2 W.D. MISC. DKT. 2016

THE FORTIETH STATEWIDE
INVESTIGATING GRAND JURY

ALLEGHENY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS
CP-02-MD-571-2016
NOTICE NO.

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, David J. Berardinelli, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy

TO REPORT NO.

1

of the foregoing RESPONSE

OF THE 40TH STATEWIDE GRAND JURY was served on June 11, 2018

via overnight mail upon the following individuals:
The Honorable Norman A. Krumenacker, III
Supervising Judge, 40th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury
Cambria County Court of Common Pleas
Cambria County Courthouse
200 South Center Street
Ebensburg, PA 15931

Daniel J. Dye
Senior Deputy Attorney General
Criminal Law Division
1600 Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120
By:
D

era

melli, PA I.D. No.79204

DEFOREST KOSCELNIK YOKITIS & BERARDINELLI
436 Seventh Ave, 30th FL

Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: 412-227-3135
Fax:
412-227-3130
Email: berardinelli@cleforestlawfirm.corn
Counselfor Auxiliary Bishop William Waltersheid

220